dismissed EB-1A Case: Sciences

U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Mass. Ave., N.W., Rm. A3042 
Washington, DC 20529 
U. S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
FILE: fl\ Office: NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER Date: MH 3 3 
03 19852153 
PETITION: Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker as an Alien of Extraordinary Ability Pursuant to Section 
203(b)(l)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 5 1153(b)(l)(A) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
INSTRUCTIONS : 
This is the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office in your case. All documents have been returned to 
the office that'originally decided your case. Any further inquiry must be made to that office: 
' ' Robert Q Wiemann, Director 
%Administrative Appeals Office 
* 
DISCUSSION: The employment-based immigrant visa petition was denied by the Director, Nebraska Service 
Center, and is now before the Administrative Appeals Office on appeal. The appeal will be dismissed. 
The petitioner seeks classification as an employment-based immigrant pursuant to section 203(b)(l)(A) of the 
Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. 8 1153(b)(l)(A), as an alien of extraordinary ability in the 
sciences. The director determined the petitioner had not established the sustained national or international 
acclaim necessary to qualify for classification as an alien of extraordinary ability. 
On appeal, counsel stated that he would submit a brief andlor evidence to the Adrmnistrative Appeals Office 
(AAO) within 30 days. Counsel dated the appeal June 4, 2004. Ten months later, ths office inquired as to 
whether a supplemental brief had been submitted. On April 13,2005, counsel requested an additional 30 days in 
which to file a brief and additional evidence because he was "not aware that this appeal was already transferred" 
by the director. We fmd that counsel's request for additional time to supplement the record, made more than 10 
months after the appeal was filed, does not constitute good cause for granting an extension beyond the initial 30 
days. Thus, the request is denied as a matter of discretion pursuant to the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 8 103.3(a)(2)(vii). 
As stked in 8 C.F.R. 103.3(a)(l)(v), an appeal shall be summarily dismissed if the party concerned fails to 
identify specifically any erroneous conclusion of law or statement of fact for the appeal. 
Counsel here has not specifically addressed the reasons stated for denial and has not provided any additional 
evidence. The appeal must therefore be summarily dismissed. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.